System and method for analyzing user device information

ABSTRACT

A system and method is provided to track users across applications and devices, and to distinguish similar or different users among a number of commonly-used devices. Accordingly, systems and methods are provided for analyzing user device information to determine different users among a number of devices. In particular, user&#39;s behavior when using the devices is observed, and responsive to that observed behavior, is the determined whether a particular users are distinguishable from other users. For instance, it may be useful to distinguish between users that operate the same devices or exist within a similar network (e.g., a home network, a workplace network, etc.) for various purposes. For instance, it may be useful to distinguish between users for displaying advertising to these users, performing some other operation with respect to a subset of the users.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/677,110 entitled “MANAGING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN DEVICE IDENTIFIERS” filed Nov. 14, 2012 which is a non-provisional application of and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/559,879, filed Nov. 15, 2011, U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/563,277, filed Nov. 23, 2011 and U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/563,963, filed Nov. 28, 2011, of which applications are incorporated herein by reference by their entirety.

BACKGROUND

There are many systems that are used to analyze behaviors of users within distributed communication networks such as the Internet. In particular, there are systems that track user behavior of computing devices such as PCs, mobile devices, gaming consoles, among others. Such behavior is used typically to determine the display of advertising to users of these devices by online advertising systems. For example, advertisements such as banner ads, text, images, audio, video, or other media may be displayed to a user based on their behavior. Techniques such as using cookies, pixels, among others may be used to track how users interact with applications, websites, and other forms of content and store information relating to particular users' behavior. Advertising systems may use such behavior information to specifically target particular users and deliver customized advertising content to particular users. Because such content is targeted to a particular user, the likelihood that the particular advertising message is successful is increased.

SUMMARY

It is realized that although such conventional techniques are used to track user behavior of devices, such techniques do not permit advertisers to track users across applications and devices. It is appreciated that different application programs on a same computing device appear as different devices to server-based systems that provide and track advertisements to computing devices of users. It would be useful to provide systems that can track user behavior among multiple computing devices, such as a mobile device, a PC, television, gaming device, or other system. For instance, such a system may more accurately track and model a user's behavior and more effectively target the user among multiple devices.

Also, it is appreciated that different users may use a single computing device, and methods for discerning between different users may be useful. For instance, there may be, within a single household, a number of different users that use the same computing devices. It would be useful to discern between such individuals for the purpose of delivering targeted advertising to these users. For example, one user may be interested in football (e.g., is a fan of the Buffalo Bills), yet another user may not be interested in football at all, and an advertising message targeted to a football fan may not be appropriate or effective in reaching this other user.

According to one aspect of the present invention, behavioral information (e.g., website “signings” of a user, application “sightings,” etc.) may be used to determine contexts of particular users in order to determine, within a connected network of devices, which devices exhibit similar behavior, and thus the devices should be grouped together and/or may exhibit use by a common user that operates multiple devices. Such contexts may be clustered together to determine similar contexts. For instance, certain behaviors may be grouped together for a particular device or node or group of nodes within the distributed network as represented by a device graph. The device graph includes a representation of devices in the network with connections being formed between the devices, these connections indicating their level of how closely they are related.

Further, such contexts may be propagated to a model of other devices that are determined to be neighbors of the device. A correlation matrix (e.g., a Pearson correlation matrix) may be created using the propagated contexts to determine what behavior among connected nodes of the network provide the highest correlation of behavior (e.g., as determined by site visits/app usage). Such propagated contexts may be used to “train” a scoring engine. In one embodiment, the system determines relative correlations between systems. It is also appreciated that some highly correlated apps/sites may be fraudulent, activity that is common among platforms and can be attributed to bots, or is at an interest level that is high and therefore is commonly correlated among devices as a result of being popular (and is therefore not a good indication of distinctiveness or similarity). For instance, the site “abc.com” is a commonly accessed site that could be removed as not being distinctive among multiple devices.

For two particular platform pairs of devices within the device graph (e.g., an iPhone and an Android tablet) a reduced matrix may be derived. A system may use this reduced matrix to multiply feature vectors (e.g., by a dot product) derived from behavior observed at a device to determine a raw score for an edge within the device graph. These raw scores may be mapped to an actual score using bins. The score may be recorded for a particular model of a device graph, indicating that for the particular platform pair, the platforms are related (or not). Such information may be used to indicate device use to a user (e.g., for monitoring or other function), may be used to perform some action or series of actions (e.g., determine display(s) of advertising on one or more devices), determine whether certain users are similar or dissimilar to other users, or to perform some other evaluation or indication. In one embodiment, sighting data from website visits, application use, or other behavioral data is used as a basis to determine similarity between users across multiple devices. In one embodiment, sighting data is used in association with a device graph to determine similarity. In one instance, sighting data is propagated to other nodes within the device graph to which other nodes are connected.

Sighting data is compared and propagated to different nodes of the device graph. Such sighting behavior or context among the nodes is grouped together in clusters. Contexts are propagated and joint probabilities are calculated for particular contexts. Attribution matrices are determined for the propagated contexts within the graph. In a scoring procedure, the attribution matrix and determined scope mappings may be used to classify and score future behavioral sighting data. In particular, the system may determine a feature vector based on the behavioral data and multiply that vector by the determined attribution matrix to determine a score that indicates similarity. Such similarity scores may be used to determine how similar or dissimilar particular users are from one another or to identify users that operate across connected devices.

It is appreciated that most companies that provide products and services have adopted consumer-based approaches to running their businesses. Such companies spend marketing dollars for three basic functions to execute on this strategy. These include (1) acquisition via paid media, (2) personalization of content for particular advertising targets (e.g., consumers), and (3) analytics of the effectiveness of the acquisition and the personalization. Aspects of the present invention allow companies (e.g., advertisers) to perform these functions with more precision by allowing an understanding of which individuals are interacting with a brand versus how a device or household is interacting with a brand.

For example, relating to an acquisition activity, a marketer may want to show a paid advertisement to someone who is in their target audience. For instance, Home Depot may want to show an advertisement promoting garden tools that are on sale to someone who actively maintains a garden. Home Depot may be forced to show an advertisement only to devices where they can discern the user is a gardener (which may be a subset of that users actual devices) or show an ad to everyone in the household of a gardener (which would potentially target users who have no interest in garden tool). According to one aspect of the present invention, a system is provided that has the ability to more precisely target a single user on all of their devices.

In another example relating to personalization, using the previous example above, Home Depot might want to show a promotion for this sale to the gardener when the gardener visits the Home Depot home page. They would fail to show the message correctly to the user if using only device level information and would show the wrong promotion by using household level information. Rather, according to one aspect of the present invention, a system is provided that can correctly target the gardener user on a particular device within a household.

The same principles may be applied from an analytics perspective. In the case of looking at the device level, a user may see an ad for the Home Depot promotion on their phone, but ultimately buys the gardening tools on their desktop. Without a way of relating activity between devices by the user, the phone ad is not given any credit for influencing the purchasing decision. When looking at the household level, a different person may have seen the ad versus some other person who purchased the gardening tools, therefore overvaluing the effectiveness of the ad. Rather, according to one aspect of the present invention, a system is provided that provides a true view of the consumer level effectiveness of Home Depot's marketing spend.

According to one aspect of the present invention, a system is provided comprising a database adapted to store sighting data relating to one or more devices connected in a device graph, and a scoring engine adapted to score one or more edges of the device graph connecting the one or more devices wherein the score of at least one of the one or more edges is determined based upon the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to a website. According to one embodiment, the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to an application program. According to another embodiment, the system further comprises a component adapted to train a component of the scoring engine using at least one portion of the sighting data.

According to one embodiment, the component adapted to train a component of the scoring engine using the at least one portion of the sighting data is adapted to propagate sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises a component adapted to determine a correlation between connected nodes within the device graph based on the at least one portion of the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the component adapted to determine a correlation is adapted to determine a Pearson correlation matrix based on the propagated sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph. According to another embodiment, the connected nodes within the device graph are different computer platforms.

According to one embodiment, the system further comprises a component that is adapted to reduce a volume of sighting data by grouping similar sighting data. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises a component that is adapted to eliminate fraudulent data within the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the scoring engine is adapted to score one or more edges of the device graph connecting the one or more devices responsive to the training of the component of the scoring engine using the at least one portion of the sighting data. According to another embodiment, the system further comprises an interface that indicates the score. According to yet another embodiment, the system further comprises a component that is adapted to perform an action using a computer system responsive to the determined score.

According to another aspect of the present invention, a method is provided comprising acts of maintaining, in a memory of a computer system, a device graph including a representation of a plurality of devices connected by one or more edges, storing sighting data relating to the one or more devices connected in the device graph, and scoring, by a scoring engine, one or more edges of the device graph connecting the one or more devices wherein the act of scoring at least one of the one or more edges is determined based upon the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to a website. According to one embodiment, the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to an application program. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises an act of training, by a component of the scoring engine, using at least one portion of the sighting data. According to another embodiment, the system further comprises an act of propagating sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph.

According to one embodiment, the system further comprises an act of determining, by a correlation component, a correlation between connected nodes within the device graph based on the at least one portion of the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises an act of determining, by the correlation component, a Pearson correlation matrix based on the propagated sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph. According to one embodiment, the connected nodes within the device graph are different computer platforms. According to another embodiment, the system further comprises an act of reducing a volume of sighting data responsive to an act of grouping similar sighting data.

According to one embodiment, the system further comprises an act of eliminating fraudulent data within the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises an act of scoring, but the scoring engine, one or more edges of the device graph connecting the one or more devices responsive to the training of the component of the scoring engine using the at least one portion of the sighting data. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises an act of indicating, by a computer-based interface, the score of the one or more edges of the device graph. According to another embodiment, the system further comprises an act of performing, by a computer system, responsive to the determined score.

Still other aspects, examples, and advantages of these exemplary aspects and examples, are discussed in detail below. Moreover, it is to be understood that both the foregoing information and the following detailed description are merely illustrative examples of various aspects and examples, and are intended to provide an overview or framework for understanding the nature and character of the claimed aspects and examples. Any example disclosed herein may be combined with any other example in any manner consistent with at least one of the objects, aims, and needs disclosed herein, and references to “an example,” “some examples,” “an alternate example,” “various examples,” “one example,” “at least one example,” “this and other examples” or the like are not necessarily mutually exclusive and are intended to indicate that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the example may be included in at least one example. The appearances of such terms herein are not necessarily all referring to the same example.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various aspects of at least one example are discussed below with reference to the accompanying figures, which are not intended to be drawn to scale. The figures are included to provide an illustration and a further understanding of the various aspects and examples, and are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, but are not intended as a definition of the limits of a particular example. The drawings, together with the remainder of the specification, serve to explain principles and operations of the described and claimed aspects and examples. In the figures, each identical or nearly identical component that is illustrated in various figures is represented by a like numeral. For purposes of clarity, not every component may be labeled in every figure. In the figures:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a system for analyzing user device information according to various aspects of the present invention;

FIG. 2 shows an example process for analyzing user device information according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 shows another example process for analyzing user device information according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 shows another example process for analyzing user device information according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 5 shows another example process for analyzing user device information according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 6 shows an example device graph that may be used according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 7 shows an example process for merging device identifiers according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 8 shows an example device graph according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 9 shows an example device graph where behavior can be propagated within a device graph according to one embodiment;

FIG. 10 shows an example of website and application usage that may be analyzed according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 11 shows a chart that may be created that counts a number of co-occurrences of various website and application accesses according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 12 shows a Pearson matrix for the example according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 13 shows a chart of highly correlated entries that may be removed from the matrix according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 14 shows a chart showing remaining sites of the matrix according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 15 shows a Pearson matrix for the example with bot sites removed according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 16 shows an example “M” matrix according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 17 shows an example binary feature matrix according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 18 shows an example feature matrix according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 19 shows a normalized feature vector matrix according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 20 shows a chart that shows a fraction of time a score may win for a particular raw score value according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 21 shows a graph of actual binning and best fit function of that binning according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 22 shows a chart showing true scores for platform pairs according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 23 shows a chart showing random binning sampling with replacement according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 24 shows a sorted version of the chart in FIG. 23 according to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 25 shows an example bin mapping according to one embodiment of the present invention; and

FIG. 26 shows a normalized feature vector according to one embodiment of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As described above, it may be useful to track users across applications and devices, and to distinguish similar or different users among a number of commonly-used devices. Accordingly, systems and methods are provided for analyzing user device information to determine different users among a number of devices. In particular, user's behavior when using the devices is observed, and responsive to that observed behavior, is the determined whether a particular users are distinguishable from other users. For instance, it may be useful to distinguish between users that operate the same devices or exist within a similar network (e.g., a home network, a workplace network, etc.) for various purposes. For instance, it may be useful to distinguish between users for displaying advertising to these users, performing some other operation with respect to a subset of the users.

FIG. 1 shows a distributed system 100 including one or more users 102 that operate one or more devices 103 that execute one or more applications 104. For instance, users 102 may operate one or more PCs, mobile devices, or other computing device that accesses a communication network (e.g., the Internet). Such devices may have one or more applications (e.g., applications 104) that communicate with one or more systems within a distributed system 100. Such applications may include, for example, a browser application, another type of application that communicates with one or more systems, or any other application that can collect behavior (e.g. behavior 105) of the user.

Such devices may communicate with a system 101 that is capable of observing such behavior. System 101 may include one or more processing engines including, but not limited to, scoring engine 106 that is capable of determining a similarity score for particular users. System 101 may also include a storage entity 109 on which data may be stored associated with system 101. For instance, system 101 may create and maintain a device graph 107 that identifies, based on collective behavior information, access patterns between devices, users, and other entities. Storage 109 may also include segmentation information 108 which identifies particular collections of devices, users and other entities that are recognized from system 101 as being similar.

FIG. 2 shows a process 200 for analyzing user device information according to one embodiment of the present invention. At block 201, process 200 begins. At block 202, the system (e.g., system 101) collects sighting data for one or more users. For instance, such sighting data may include, for example, application use information by one or more users, website visits within a browser program performed by one or more users, or any other behavioral information that could be collected from a computing device that indicates user behavior. A sighting may include, for example, an observation of a device with a given context at a particular time.

For instance, a website sighting may be an observation (e.g., by a system) that a particular device visited a website. For instance, device abc was observed on website www.tapad.com at 13:00 on Jan. 1, 2015. An application or app sighting might include a sighting (e.g., by the device or other system) of an app on a device. For example, use of the Yelp app was observed on device abc on Jan. 1, 2015.

At block 203, the system selects a device pair for comparison. At block 204, the system determines a similarity between behavioral data based on the sighting data collected. The system then may compute a similarity score between the devices, based on the sighting data at block 205. At block 206, process 200 ends.

FIG. 3 shows a process 300 for analyzing device data according to one embodiment of the present invention. At block 301, process 300 begins. At block 302, the system (e.g., system 101) collects sighting data as discussed above with reference to FIG. 2. At block 303, the system determines one or more contexts associated with a particular device. At block 304, the contexts may be clustered into groups at block 304. At block 305, the system determines attribution matrices associated with the contexts. Based on the attribution matrices, the system may determine a score at block 306 for a particular device. At block 307, process 300 ends.

FIG. 4 shows a process for analyzing device information according to one embodiment of the present invention. At block 401, process 400 begins. The process may include one or more aspects that relate to training a scoring engine (e.g., scoring engine 106). At block 402, the system trains a scoring engine based on sighting information collected for one or more devices. At block 403, the system may create attribution matrices. At block 404, the system creates score mappings which may be used to produce scores based on received data. After training is performed, the system may receive behavior data for one or more users at block 405. At block 406, the system may create a feature vector using the attribution matrices determined within the training process. A block 407, the system compares vectors and score mappings to create a raw score based on the behavior. At block 408, the system determines a final score based on score mappings. At block 409, process 400 ends.

FIG. 5 shows another example process for analyzing device information according to one embodiment of the present invention. For instance, one or more components of system 101 may perform one or more processes within FIG. 5. In block 501, a training process occurs where sighting data (e.g., app and browser sighting information) is used to train a scoring engine (e.g., engine 106) that can determine, based on future sightings, relatively how positive that behavior on any two devices are related. This information may be used to conclude, for example, that the users exhibit similar behavior, or for two connected devices, whether a particular user uses both devices.

As shown in FIG. 5, sighting data 503 is collected and used to train the system during a training procedure 501. At block 504, fraud detection and context filtering may be performed to remove fraudulent information from the sighting data. For instance, it is appreciated that there may be bots that attempt to cheat an advertisement system by creating fake traffic. To avoid having fraudulent data incorporated into a scoring model, fraud detection techniques may be used to filter out such sighting data. One method might also include finding devices and context that are highly clustered, i.e. devices and contexts that are only seen together. These contexts and devices may be then removed from the sighting data.

At block 505, the system may perform context clustering. Prior to building a scoring matrix, it might be helpful to cluster context within the sighting data into super contexts. This capability allows for a reduction in dimensionality and may result in a better-behaved scoring matrix. Clustering may be performed using various methods including modularity clustering and/or clustering based on a reduction in the similarity measures such as correlation. In one embodiment, clustering may be an optional step.

At block 506, the system determines an attribution matrix M. In general, the attribution matrix is a way to map raw sightings per device into a feature vector. Various methods may be used to determine an attribution matrix, including, but not limited to, a Pearson correlation matrix, a Pearson correlation matrix with reduction in dimensionality (SVD), an inverse Cholesky-root of a Pearson covariance matrix, an inverse Cholesky-root of a Pearson covariance matrix with reduction in dimensionality (SVD), OASIS, a modified OASIS, or other method. It is noted that each of the above methods may be used with data that is trained on a per platform pair basis.

At block 507, the system calculates final score mappings h which is used in scoring to map a raw score to a final individual score. For example, a mapping may be determined based on a “win rate” followed by a uniform discretization. For a given raw score R, the win rate is the rate at which a randomly selected unrelated pair of devices of the same platform pair chosen from the training data would have a raw score that exceeds R. For example, for a given device pair, a win rate of 50% implies that half of the randomly selected device peers appeared to be better related than the given device pair.

At block 508, actual sighting data is used to create a feature vector using the M matrix determined during the training process. At block 510, the system compares to feature vectors to obtain a raw score, and the raw scores map to a final individual score using this scoring mappers determined from mappings h determined during training. The scoring process yields one or more scores 512 for device pairs, which indicates the level to which the selected device pairs are related or connected. Such information may be used in association with a device graph as described below with respect to FIGS. 6-9.

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary device graph 600, according to one embodiment that may be used to analyze user behavior on a number devices according to various aspects of the present invention. The device graph 600 includes six device identifiers, device identifier A, device identifier B, device identifier C, device identifier D, device identifier E, and device identifier F. As discussed above, the device identifier may be an identifier used by a device when the device accesses content (e.g., accesses a news website).

In the example shown, device identifier A may be, for example, a cookie ID for a browser application on a smartphone, device identifier B is an MAC address for a computing device that has been hashed using the Message Digest-5 (MD-5) hashing function/algorithm, device identifier C is an iOS® Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA), device identifier D is a Android® device ID, device identifier E is a cookie ID for a browser application on a desktop computer, and device identifier F is a cookie ID for a browser application on an Android® device.

In the device graph 600, a device identifier may represent a device that associated with the device identifier (e.g., may represent the device that is using the device identifier). In one embodiment, a device may be a computing device and/or an application, software, software modules, and/or other component on the computing device. For example, the device may be one or more of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server computer, a PDA, smartphone, web-enabled television set, smart television set, a gaming console, and/or any other device capable of processing, managing and/or transmitting data. In another example, the device may be software, a software module, an application, and/or other component on a computing device. In another example, the device may be one or more of a web browser, an application (e.g., a mail application or a social networking application installed on smartphone), a game application, a media player application (e.g., a video player or a music player), a software module (e.g., an add-on or a component for a browser application), etc.

Each device (e.g., each computing device and/or each software or application) may have one or more device identifiers. For example, a smartphone (e.g., a device) may have a MAC address, a serial number (e.g., a serial number from a manufacturer an Open Device Identification Number (ODIN), a Unique Device Identifier (UDID), an OpenUDID, a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), an IMEI number, an IP address, etc.), which may each be device identifiers. In another example, applications, software, and/or software modules may also have device identifiers. For example, an application on a computing device may have a serial number which may be the device identifier for the application. In another example, a web browser application may have cookie which includes an identifier and the identifier in the cookie (e.g., the cookie ID) may be the device identifier for the web browser application.

In a further example, an application (e.g., a mobile news application, a game, etc.) may use different types of device identifiers (e.g., a GUID, a UUID, etc.). In other embodiments, device identifiers may include, but are not limited to, IP addresses, a MAC addresses, IMEI numbers, serial numbers, ODINs, UDIDs, OpenUDIDs, GUIDs, cookie IDs, an iOS® IDFA, an Identifier for Vendors (IDFV), and/or any other data/information which may be used to identify a device (e.g., an application, software, and/or a computing device). In one embodiment, a device identifier may be a number (e.g., 734598238742), an alphanumeric value (e.g., A984FDSJL334), a string of characters (e.g., HZ$98!324*1), or any type of value that may be used to identify a device (e.g., an application, software, and/or a computing device).

In one embodiment, a device (e.g., a computing device, an application, software, a software module, etc.) may generate a device identifier. For example, when the application (e.g., a device) is installed onto the computing device the application (or an installer/install file for the application) may generate a device identifier based on an address associated with the computing device. In another example, a computing device (e.g., a device, such as a smartphone), may generate a device identifier based on other identifiers for the computing device (e.g., the smartphone may generate a device identifier based on an IMEI number or a UDID for the smartphone). In some embodiments, the device (e.g., a computing device, an application, etc.) may use a variety methods, algorithms, operations, and/or functions, to generate device identifiers. For example, an application on a computing device may use a cryptographic hash function (e.g., Secure HashAlgorithm-1 (SHA-1), Secure Hash Algorithm-2 (SHA-2), Message Digest-5 (MD-5), etc.) to generate a device identifier for the application based on an IMEI for the computing device. In another example, a computing device (e.g., a tablet computer) may use a random number generator (e.g., a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG)) to generate a device identifier based on an address associated with the computing device.

Referring back to FIG. 6, the device identifier A is connected to device identifier B via connection 602, to device identifier C via connection 601, and to device identifier D via connection 605. The device identifier B is connected to the device identifier C via connection 606 and to device identifier D via connection 606. The device identifier C is connected to the device identifier D via connection 604. Device identifier E and device identifier F are not connected to other device identifiers. Each of connections 601-606 has a weight associated with the connection. Connection 602 has a weight of 5, connection 601 has a weight of 7, connection 603 has a weight of 3, connection 604 does not include a weight, connection 605 has a weight of 1, and connection 606 has a weight of 5. In one embodiment, the connections in the device graph 600 (e.g., connections 601-606) may be identified based on (i) network data (e.g., identified based on whether device identifiers used the same network/network gateway), (ii) login information (e.g., based on whether two devices for two device identifiers used the same login information to access content from a partner such as a publisher, an advertiser, etc.), and/or (iii) both network data and login information.

In one embodiment, the weight of the connection (e.g., the weight 7 for connection 601) may be indicative of how closely or how strongly two device identifiers are associated with each other. For example, the weight for each connection may be a numeric value (e.g., a number). A higher numeric value may indicate that two device identifiers are closely associated with each other and a lower numeric value may indicate that two device identifiers are less closely associated with each other. In one embodiment, a closer association between two device identifiers may indicate that the two device identifiers originate from the same computing device. For example, a first device identifier may be an identifier for a computing device (e.g., a smartphone) and a second device identifier may be for an application (e.g., a web browser) that is used on the computing device. In another example, a first device identifier may be an identifier for a first application (e.g., a web browser) on a computing device and the second device identifier may be for a second application (e.g., a game or social networking application) on the same computing device. In another embodiment, a closer association between two device identifiers may indicate that the two device identifiers originate from computing devices that are used by the same user, or that are used by users who know each other (e.g., members of a household, friends, etc.). For example, the first device identifier may be for a first computing device (e.g., a smartphone) used by a user and the second device identifier may be for a second computing device (e.g., a laptop computer) used by the same user. In another example, the first device identifier may be for a first computing device (e.g., a tablet computer) used by a user and the second device identifier may be for a second computing device (e.g., a laptop computer) used by a family member (e.g., husband, wife brother, sister, son, daughter, etc.) of the user.

In one embodiment, the connections 601-606 may also include other information in addition to the weights. For example, the connection 604 includes information (e.g., the text/value “login”) indicating that the connection 604 was established because the device associated with device identifier C and the device associated with device identifier D used the same login information (e.g., same username/password) to access content from a partner (e.g., publisher, advertiser). In another example, the connection 605 includes information (e.g., the text/value “login”) indicating that the connection 605 was identified because the device for device identifier A and the device for device identifier D used the same login information to access content from a publisher (e.g., used the same username/password to access an email account), and information (e.g., the weight “1”) indicating that the connection 605 was also identified because device identifier A and device identifier D used the same network gateway (e.g., accessed the publisher service via the same Wi-Fi network). In addition, the connection may also include information indicating the name of the partner (e.g., a publisher, an advertiser, etc.) that provided the login information. For example, the connection may include the text/value “login-Gmail®” indicating that the login information was received from Google®, or the connection may include the text/value “login/Pandora®” indicating that the login information was received from Pandora®. In a further example, the connection may also include information indicating where the network data (that was used to identify the connection) was obtained from (e.g., a merchant server, a content server, an advertisement server, a network data server, etc.). Although strings or text are illustrated in FIG. 6 to represent the additional information, in other embodiments, the additional information (e.g., information indicating how a collection was identified) may be represented using other strings, numbers, alphanumeric values, and/or other representations. For example, the text “network” may be included in a connection to indicate that the connection was identified because two device identifiers used the same network.

In one embodiment, the connections between the device identifiers may not include weights. For example, when a connection between two device identifiers is identified using login information, the connection may not include a weight.

As discussed above, the connections 601-606, and the weights for the connections are determined or identified using network data and/or login information (e.g., username and/or password) that is used by different devices to access a partner's (e.g., publisher's, advertiser's) website. The network data may include a device identifier (e.g., an iOS® IDFA, a Android® device ID, an identifier in a cookie, etc.) for a device (e.g., a computing device and/or an application), a type of a network used by the device (e.g., whether the network is a residential/home network, or a commercial/business/corporate network), an identifier for the network (e.g., an IP address for the network, such as the IP address for a Wi-Fi router) that is used by the device, a type for the content that was accessed by the computing device and/or application (e.g., news content, music content, video content, etc.), an identifier for the servers that host the content (e.g., an IP address or a domain name for the servers), user agent information (e.g., the type of a browser, such as Mozilla®, Safari®, Firefox®, Chrome®, Internet Explorer®, etc.), website header information (e.g., HTTP headers/fields), and/or a time that the content was accessed (e.g., Sep. 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM PST). In one embodiment, the network data may be generated, obtained and/or inferred by a server (e.g., tracking server 305, network data server 325, etc., as shown in FIG. 3) based on other data (e.g., based on other network data). For example, based on the IP address of a device, the server may be able to determine the type of the network (e.g., whether the network is a residential or a commercial network) by performing an IP address lookup.

The servers that host or store the content (e.g., websites, multimedia content, etc.) that is accessed by the devices may obtain and/or record network data when the device accesses the content. For example, a server that hosts a news website may obtain a cookie ID for a web browser on a smartphone. In another example, a server that hosts social networking content may obtain an IP address for a tablet computer that accesses the social networking content. In one embodiment, these servers may provide the network data (e.g., device identifiers, network types, identifiers for the servers, etc.) to an identifier module. The identifier module may obtain and/or create a device graph (such as device graph 600) based on network data received from the servers. In another embodiment, the servers may provide the network data to a network data server (e.g., a server for an online data vendor/partner which collects and stores the network). For example, the network data server may collect network data from multiple servers that host different content. In another example, one or more of a content server, a merchant server, and an advertisement server may provide the network data to the identifier module. The network data server may provide the network data to the identifier module. The identifier module may obtain and/or create a device graph (such as device graph 600) based on network data received from the servers. In a further embodiment, an application/software on a computing may obtain device identifiers (e.g., a MAC address, an IP address, an IMEI number, a UDID, among others) and may provide these identifiers to the identifier module. For example, a game application that is installed on a smartphone may obtain the iOS® IDFA for the smartphone and may provide the iOS® IDFA to the identifier module.

In another embodiment, the identifier module may obtain login information and network data from different servers. The identifier module may identify connections between different device identifiers, based on the login information. For example, the identifier module may obtain hashed login information that was used to access an email server. The identifier module may determine that two different devices (each with different device identifiers) used the same login information (e.g., same username and/or password) to access an email account. The identifier module may create a connection between the two device identifiers (e.g., between the two devices) because the two devices associated with the two device identifiers used the same login information to access the email account.

In one embodiment, the weights for the connections 601-606, and the weights may be increased or decreased based on different criteria, rules, factors, and/or conditions. For example, the weight for the connection 602 may be increased if device identifier A and device identifier B are seen on the same residential network within a period of time (e.g., seven days). In another example, the weight for connection 606 may be decreased of device identifier B and device identifier C have not been seen on the same residential network for a period of time (e.g., two weeks). The identifier module may increase and/or decrease the weights for the connections 601-606 based on the network data received from the servers and/or the network data server.

In one embodiment, device identifiers may be removed from the device graph 600. For example, device identifier E is not connected to other device identifiers. After a period of time (e.g., 30 days, 7 days, etc.), the device identifier E may be removed from the device graph 600 if the device identifier E is still not connected to other identifiers or the device identifier has not been refreshed in a threshold period of time. In another embodiment, device identifiers may be added to the device graph 600. For example, a new device identifier may be added to the device graph and a new connection may connect the new device identifier to device identifier F (not shown in the figures).

In one embodiment, a server may manage, update, and/or track all device identifiers (e.g., all identifiers for computing devices, software, application, etc.) and the connections between all the device identifiers using a single device graph. Because all device identifiers may be included in a single device graph, the single device graph may include disjointed groups of connected device identifiers and single device identifiers that have no connections. In another embodiment, there may be separate device graphs that contain different device identifiers and connections.

FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary device graph 700, according to another embodiment. The device graph 700 also includes device identifier A, device identifier B, device identifier C, device identifier D, device identifier E, device identifier F, and device identifier G. Device identifier A is a cookie ID for a browser application on a smartphone, device identifier B is an address for a computing device (e.g., a MAC or other type of address) that has been hashed using the Message Digest-5 (MD-5) hashing function/algorithm, device identifier C is an iOS® Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA), device identifier D is a Android® device ID, device identifier E is a cookie ID for a browser application on a desktop computer, device identifier F is a cookie ID for a browser application on an Android® device, and device identifier G is an IMEI for a computing device that has been hashed using the Secure Hashing Algorithm-1 (SHA-1). The graph 700 also includes a merged identifier ABC. The merged identifier ABC aggregates device identifier A, device identifier B, and device identifier C, so that they are equivalent.

Merged identifier ABC is connected to device identifier D via connection 701 and connection 701 has a weight of 4. Device identifier D is connected to device identifier G via connection 702 and connection 702 has a weight of 4. Device identifier F is connected to device identifier G via connection 703 and the connection 703 has a weight of 2. The connection 703 also includes information (e.g., the text/value “login”) indicating that the connection 703 was identified because both the device identifier F and the device identifier G accessed content (e.g., a website, a service, etc.) using the same login information (e.g., same username/pas sword).

In one embodiment, device identifiers may be merged if the device identifiers originate from the same computing device. For example, device identifier A may be an identifier for the computing device's operating system (e.g., an iOS® IDFA), device identifier B may be an identifier for a web browser (e.g., a cookie ID), and device identifier C may be an identifier for another application (e.g., a game application) on the computing device (e.g., a serial number for a second application). One of the applications (e.g., the game application) may obtain different identifiers for the computing device and/or the applications on the computing device. For example, the game application may obtain the IMEI number, the iOS® IDFA, and a cookie ID. The game application may provide these identifiers to the identifier module and may indicate that these three identifiers originate from the same computing device and/or user. The identifier module may merge the different identifiers in a device graph, based on this information. In one embodiment, after device identifiers are merged, when the identifier module later accesses the device graph to find a device identifier, the merged device identifiers are stored as being equivalent to each other. For example, when the identifier module accesses device graph 700 to find device identifier A, the device identifier A is stored in the device graph 700 as being equivalent to device identifier B and/or device identifier C.

In another embodiment, device identifier may be merged when cookie syncing is performed. For example, an advertiser or a publisher may implement cookie syncing between an advertisement exchange (e.g., an ad exchange where bids for advertisements are processed). The advertiser/publisher may use a first cookie ID (e.g., cookie IDA) and the advertisement exchange may use a second cookie ID (e.g., cookie ID B). The identifier module may merge the first cookie ID and the second cookie ID because the publisher and the advertisement exchange have synced the two cookie IDs (e.g., both cookie IDs belong to the same device).

In one embodiment device identifiers may not be merged even though the device identifiers are associated with the same login information or user credentials. For example, as discussed above, the identifier module may identify a connection between two device identifiers because the two device identifiers are associated with the same login information (e.g., same user credentials). The identifier module may not merge the two device identifiers, but may indicate in the connection (e.g., in the extra information included in the connection) that the connection was identified based on login information.

In another embodiment, device identifiers may be merged if the device identifiers are associated with the same user credentials for a server. For example, a user may use desktop computer at work to log into an email website. The desktop computer may have the device identifier A. The user may also use an email application on a smartphone to access the same email website when the user is away from a computer. The email application may have the device identifier B. The user may also use a web browser on a tablet computer to access the email website when the user is at home (e.g., at the user's residence). The table computer may have the device identifier C. Because the user may use the same user credentials (e.g., username, password, personal identification number (PIN), etc.), the server that hosts the email website may provide network data indicating that device identifiers A, B, and C, are all associated with the same user credentials. The device identifiers A, B, and C, may be merged or combined into the merged identifier ABC, based on the network data. However, it should be appreciated that devices may not be merged if different users utilize the same device (e.g., a shared family PC, gaming system, etc.). In this case, it may be useful to discern which user is operating a common device at a specific instance.

In one embodiment, when multiple device identifiers are merged, the connections and the weights for the multiple device identifiers may also be merged or combined. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, device identifier A is connected to device identifier D via connection 605 that has a weight of 1, device identifier B is connected to device identifier D via connection 603 that has a weight of 3, and device identifier C is connected to device identifier D via connection 604 that was established using login information. Referring back to FIG. 7, the merged identifier ABC includes device identifiers A, B, and C. The merged identifier ABC is connected to device identifier D via connection 701. The connection 701 has a weight 4, which is the sum of the weights for connections 603-605 shown in FIG. 6. In other embodiments, the weights for connections that have been merged due to the merging of device identifiers may be obtained using other methods. For example, instead of summing the weights of the merged connections, the average weight of the merged connections may be used.

Although FIGS. 6 and 7 illustrate device identifiers, connections between the device identifiers, and weights for the connections using a graph, this information may be represented using different representations and/or data structures. For example, the identifiers, connections, and weights for the connections illustrated in FIG. 7 may be represented using a table. It should be understood that in other embodiments, the device identifiers, connections, and weights for the connections may be represented using other data structures and/or representations, such as graphs, tables, charts, trees, etc.

According to one embodiment, one or more device graphs (e.g., graphs 600, 700) may be used to determine whether certain behavior by user is more likely to be the same user among multiple connected devices. For instance, as shown in FIG. 8, each square shown may be used to represent a device or “node” in the device graph. For instance, according to one model, each device or node in the graph includes several pieces of data associated with it. For instance, each node may be identified by what type of platform it is, what site(s) the note has visited as well as its neighbors within the device graph. For example, nodes “1” and “2” might have information associated with them such as outlined in the following example:

Node 1:

Platform: iPhone

Websites/App Visited: abc.com

Neighbors: Nodes 2, 3, and 4.

Node 2:

Platform: Android Tablet

Websites/Apps Visited: MyWeatherAndroidApp, MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp

Neighbors: Nodes 1, 3, and 4

Such types of information could be generated for Nodes 3 through 10. According to one implementation, the process may consider edges in the graph of one platform type. For example, here we will only consider (in the toy example) iPhone and AndroidTablet edges (that means iPhones connected to AndroidTablets and vice versa but no other devices). This training process is repeated for each platform pair in turn and new matrices/mapping functions are created for each platform pair until the final step.

According to one implementation, in a first phase, behavior information is propagated to connected neighboring nodes. In particular, the process may “propagate” the websites and applications visited to the neighbors (again, considering only edges that are consistent with our chosen platform pair). It is appreciated that because there is generally very little overlap between App based devices (devices that only use apps like many mobile devices) and Browser based devices (devices that only go to websites like computers), one assumption is that by using propagation, the process will add more signal than noise. That is, it is appreciated that devices connected in the graph are more likely to belong to the same user than random devices not connected in the graph.

After propagation, the nodes now look like following:

Node 1:

Platform: iPhone

Websites/App Visited: MyWeatherAndroidApp, MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp, (+any new websites/apps from abc.com devices 3 and/or 4 if 3 and/or 4 are Android Tablets)

Neighbors: Nodes 2, 3, and 4.

Node 2:

Platform: Android Tablet

Websites/Apps Visited: MyWeatherAndroidApp, MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp, abc.com, (+any new websites/apps from devices 3 and/or 4 if 3 and/or 4 are iPhones) Neighbors: Nodes 1, 3, and 4

FIG. 9 shows how the websites/apps could potentially propagate along the whole example graph. Including the propagated websites/apps, simple counts may be recorded of how many devices contain each website/app (note that in this example, multiple sitings of the same site/app on a single device is not considered). Therefore, if a user has been to abc.com 50 times, the process will still only feature one occurrence in the statistics.

For example, the following counts may be observed by one or more computer systems as shown in FIG. 10. For instance, a number or count of sightings may be collected from multiple sites/apps and may be analyzed. As shown in FIG. 10, the node has various counts of visiting abc.com, MyFavoriteAndroidApp, MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp, def.com, xyz.net, awesomeSite.com, 123.com and bestSite.net. The process may then compute how many times each pair occurs together on a device with such propagated contexts (the data is already starting to look like a matrix) as shown by way of example in FIG. 11.

For each pair, the correlation may be computed between them (e.g., by determining a Pearson Correlation). Assume for the example that there is a need to compute the correlation between context “A” and “B”.

${P_{pearson}\left( {A,B} \right)} = \frac{{P\left( {A,B} \right)} - {{P(A)}{P(B)}}}{\sqrt{{P(A)}\left( {1 - {P(A)}} \right){P(B)}\left( {1 - {P(B)}} \right)}}$ Where P(A) is the probability a device has context “A”, P(B) is the probability a device has context B and P(A,B) is the joint probability of A,B meaning that the probability a device has context A and B.

For example, for the pair MyWeatherAndroidApp & MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp (recall that there are “10” devices in this small graph example):

P(MyWeatherAndroidApp)=3/10=0.3

P(MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp)=4/10=0.4

P(MyWeatherAndroidApp,MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp)=2/10=0.2

Therefore:

${P_{pearson}\left( {{MyWeatherAndroidApp}.\mspace{14mu}{MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp}} \right)} = \frac{\left( {P\left( {{MyWeatherAndroidApp}.\mspace{14mu}{MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp}} \right)} \right)}{\left( \sqrt{{P({MyWerAndroidApp})}\left( {I\mspace{14mu}{P({MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp})}} \right){P\left( {MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp} \right.}} \right)}$ ${P_{pearson}\left( {{MyWeatherAndroidApp}.\mspace{14mu}{MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp}} \right)} = \frac{0.2 - {0.3*0.1}}{\sqrt{0.3*\left( {1 - 0.3} \right)*0.1*\left( {1 - 0.4} \right)}}$ ${P_{pearson}\left( {{MyWeatherAndroidApp}.\mspace{14mu}{MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp}} \right)} = \frac{0.2 - 0.12}{\sqrt{0.3*(0.7)*0.4*(0.6)}}$ ${P_{pearson}\left( {{MyWeatherAndroidApp}.\mspace{14mu}{MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp}} \right)} = \frac{0.08}{\sqrt{0.0}}$ ${P_{pearson}\left( {{MyWeatherAndroidApp}.\mspace{14mu}{MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp}} \right)} = \frac{0.08}{0.224}$ P_(pearson)(MyWeatherAndroidApp.  MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp) = 0.36 The Full Pearson Matrix for the above co-occurrence counts are as shown by way of example in FIG. 12. Then, the values may be determined that represent the highest correlations, and these highly-correlated entries may be flagged as possible bot correlations. This may be performed by averaging the Pearson correlation and then determining, for example, one (1) standard deviation above the correlation and flagging all those pairs whose Pearson correlation is greater than an average correlation plus a standard deviation of correlation (>avg_correlation+standard_deviation_of_correlation).

For the purpose of an example, consider the determined amount was found to have a correlation >0.55. In this case, the process could flag one or more sites as possible botnet sites as shown in FIG. 13. In one implementation, the system may then remove any pair that contains a website that is known to be popular (e.g., sites that are listed in the Alexa top 10,000 rankings (e.g., as found at http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip). Such sites may be removed, as they are not distinctive among multiple users because of their popularity. For example, imagine that the site abc.com is a very common site. The system may be adapted to determine this and could remove the entry. This would leave the sites shown in FIG. 14.

The system may then cluster the remaining ones together using the Pearson correlation as an edge weight. All remaining flagged websites that are in a group equal to or larger than n (e.g., three (3) in the example) are flagged as bots and removed from consideration. This means that pairs which just have a high correlation between them are not flagged as anomalous, only large groups of interconnected devices. In one example implementation, “modularity” clustering may be used to cluster contexts using “community detection”. Here, one such cluster exists which consists of sites def.com, 123.com, and xyz.net, and this cluster is removed from the subset. In one implementation, these websites are flagged as fraud/bots and are not considered in scoring.

Determining Attribute Matrix M

The remaining Pearson matrix looks like the matrix as shown by way of example in FIG. 15. However, it is appreciated that this matrix may be very large. The simple one shown by way of example in FIG. 15 is 5×5=25 entries. However, the matrix may be any size, some being as large as 20,000×20,000=400,000,000 entries. This means that for each device, the system needs to perform 400 million multiplications which is untenable at scale. Therefore, according to one implementation, the system is capable of performing a dimensionality reduction. The idea behind one implementation of dimensionality reduction is that some features are redundant. For example, if we always see MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp with abc.com in principle we would only have to consider one of them, because we are getting the same information twice by including both instances. For example, if you knew an animal was a “Poodle” you wouldn't need to also know that it was a “Dog” since the term Poodle would imply Dog. Dimensionality reduction is similar, but looks at overall signals and “maps” the overall signals onto a smaller space. So, instead of a 20,000×20,000 matrix, the system may be configured to “map” the 20,000 dimension onto some smaller number (e.g., a dimension of ˜1000) where each new feature is some linear combination of the old features. Where a linear combination means:

${{value\_ of}{\_ new}{\_ feature}(j)} = {\sum\limits_{i\mspace{14mu}{in}\mspace{14mu}{old\_ features}}{{a\left( {i,j} \right)}\mspace{14mu}{value\_ of}{\_ feature}(i)}}$ Where a(i,j)=is a coefficient which maps feature i onto feature j. This mapping means instead of doing 20k*20k computations, the system may perform 20k*1k computations. This reduces the matrix algebra to 1/20th of the previous complexity, which is a big savings in time and processing when data is large.

If all the features in the space are independent, then in principle, all of the components are needed to full specify the space. However, it is appreciated that some features/combination of features are much more important than others. A Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) is a good choose for such reduction. This algorithm may be used by the system to find the “k” most important new features by decomposing the matrix into eigenvectors and eigenvalues. The “k” eigenvectors with the k largest eigvenalues are kept.

For instance, in one example, it is desired to reduce to k=3 eigenvectors. This produces the following matrix (by performing an SVD on the above Pearson matrix) as shown by way of example in FIG. 16. This matrix may be designated the “M” matrix.

Calculate Final Score Mapping h

Now, a second training set of edges (again of a single platform pair type—same as considered above—iPhone/AndroidTablet) may be used to obtain a win rate function, h. Taking the original graph (though generally, you do not use the same devices to test and train, this is just a example so the data is being reused for this example).

Recall the example included these original features:

Node 1:

Platform: iPhone

Websites/App Visited: abc.com

Neighbors: Nodes 2, 3, and 4.

Node 2:

Platform: Android Tablet

Websites/Apps Visited: MyWeatherAndroidApp, MyFavoriteAndroidGameApp

Neighbors: Nodes 1, 3, and 4

(and continuing information for remainder nodes).

Now, each device will have a binary feature vector assigned to it—in this calculation step, the context is not propagated to other nodes. Rather, propagation of contexts between connected nodes is used in the training environment. Binary feature vectors are used to characterize observed behavior. For instance, the entry for that element will be 0 if the device did not visit that site or app, and 1.0 if it visited it any number of times. For node 1 and 2 this would resemble the diagram shown in FIG. 17.

These vectors are then multiplied by the dimensionality reduced M matrix to yield the matrix shown in FIG. 18.

These matrix values may then be normalized to ensure that the length of each vector has a maximum value of 1. This means that the maximum score between two devices becomes 1 as shown by way of example in FIG. 19.

To assign a raw score to the edge 1,2, the system may then determine the dot product of these normalized vectors. In this case: NormalizedM*fv(node1)*NormalizedM*fv(node2)=0.63 This score may be referred to as a “true” raw score because it is a score between a pair of devices which are connected in the graph—a true positive that indicates a connection. Now, the win rate for this value may be determined. We inspect more edges that have the same platform pair (they connect an iPhone and an Android Tablet in this case).

For each of these edges, two false edges are created. For instance, taking node1 (the iPhone) and compute a score between it and the Android Tablet of edge i (which is not connected to node1). The process does the same procedure with node2 and the iPhone of edge i. This may be referred to as a “false” score because it is a score between two devices which are not connected in the graph (this score corresponds to a false positive).

It may be determined whether this score is greater than or less than the value of 0.63 as determined above. If the value is less than 0.63 then the algorithm “wins” this round. That is, the algorithm has scored a true positive higher than a false positive. If the value is greater than 0.63 then the algorithm “loses” this round.

The system may construct a histogram and determine for each value of the true, raw score, what is the fraction of time that that score will “win”. If the score is very high (e.g., close to 1.0) then the algorithm will “win” most of the time and the win rate will be close to a value of 1. If the score is very low, then the algorithm will “lose” most of the time and the win rate will be close to 0. However, in the middle, there may a place where the algorithm wins as often as it loses (basically a coin flip) and the win rate is around 0.5—this is the system cannot distinguish a True edge from a False edge. For example, the binning might look like this as shown by way of example in FIG. 20.

This binning can be fit to a logistic function of the form:

${h\left( {true\_ score} \middle| {platform\_ pair} \right)} = {\frac{- 1.0}{1.0 + {\mathbb{e}}^{a{({x + b})}}} + 1.0}$ Where a,b are fitting parameters that depend on the platform pair being considered. FIG. 21 shows an example for some real data where the dots are the real data bins and the line is the fit of the logistic function. For the data shown in FIG. 20, a good choice would be a=5.524, b=−0.405 as shown by way of example in FIG. 21.

In a further step, the f mapping may be computed and the process considers all platform pairs together again. The training data used to fit the function h is then used to “bin” the data. First, all of the raw scores are converted into h scores by using the a & b parameters for each platform pair to convert the raw score into an h score. For each platform pair, a representative sample is taken to ensure that platform pair counts are considered in proportion to their true representation in the graph. This means that if 50% of the edges are computer/computer edges, then 50% of the data taken into consideration for the bins will be from computer/computer edge comparisons. If android/ipad=10% then the process uses five times (5×) as many computer/computer edges as android/ipad edges.

The bins may be computed as follows:

For each platform pair, randomly select c(platformPair)*J edges for comparison. Where J is some fixed number to consider and c(platformPair)=fraction of edges in the graph of type platformPair.

Each comparison has the following data:

h(raw score|platformPair) (e.g., the raw score is what was referred to as the “true raw score” above)

We then have “J” values of h, and these values are then sorted. If there are L bins, then J is divided by L. Values that fall between 0->J/L are in bin 1, values that fall between J/L=2*J/L are in bin 2, etc. An equal number of comparisons may be performed to train the h's as shown by way of example in FIG. 22.

By setting J=20, and knowing that the graph is 50% computer/computer, 10% android ipad, and 40% ipad/iphone, implies that 10 computer/computer edges, 2 android/ipad edges, and 8 ipad/iphone edges are selected. If 10 bins (L=10) are desired, J/L=20/10=2. By selecting randomly from the above with these ratios, the same comparison may be selected multiple times —referred to in the art as “sampling with replacement.” For instance, entries may be randomly selected for binning as shown in FIG. 23.

The h values in FIG. 23 may be sorted (highlighted by J/L=2) from highest to lowest as shown in FIG. 24. This would produce bin mapping as shown in FIG. 25 (note there are no ties in the data). This bin mapping produces a scoring mapper f as shown in FIG. 26. Note, the process trains the binning on a subsample of data that is expected to be representative data. In the end, the bins have close to an equal number of edges in them, but may not necessarily be perfect and there may be small fluctuations. The more sampling that is taken, the closer to equal mass is obtained.

Scoring

There may be several factors that contribute to scoring. In one implementation, scoring may include the M matrix, the parameters that map raw score to an h score, and an f mapping that maps an h (win rate) score into an approximate bin. In particular, an SVD-reduced M Matrix may be determined for each platform pair and a dictionary indicating which index belong to which feature to perform the matrix multiplication/dot product. Further, fit parameters a, b are determined for each platform pair to map raw score to an h score as discussed above. Finally, an f mapping of the h (win rate) score onto the final equal-mass approximate bin is determined.

Create Feature Vector Using M Matrix

For each edge in the graph, two devices are taken on either side and a feature vector is created using the dictionary to map the features onto a binary vector) as was performed to compute the raw score in the win rate function training discussed above. The vectors are then multiplied by the M Matrix. The resultant is normalized, and the dimensionality vectors are reduced. As discussed above, for our node1 and node2, we arrived at the following vectors as shown by way of example in FIG. 26.

The two feature vectors are compared to obtain a raw score, for example, by taking the dot product of these vectors to obtain the raw score. The h function for that platform pair is used to convert the raw score into a winRate (h) score. For a numerical example, the previously defined node1, node2 example above may be used. Recall that after the feature vectors were created, multiplied each by M, the resultant vectors were normalized, and the dot product was taken, a raw score of 0.63 was obtained.

The system may then map the raw score to a final individual score using scoring mappers f. Finally, the system may then use the h to bin mapping function to map that h score onto a bin. Using h parameters (a=5.524, b=−0.405) for the iPhone/AndroidTablet pair, an h value (win rate) of 0.78 for the edge in question is obtained which is of type iPhone/AndroidTablet and has a raw score 0.63.

Using the determined bin values, it is observed that that the value of 0.78 is in between 0.75 and 0.8 therefore the value of 0.78 maps onto bin 8. Therefore, this edge would get an individual score of 8 (corresponding to the fact that the edge in the ˜80% percentile of edges that can be scored). This is the score that is used in the graph to indicate similarity.

It should be appreciated that other methods may be used to analyze siding information. For instance, individuals may be clustered based on bin scores, win rate scores or other determinations. Also, timestamps may be used to decay certain features within the scoring mechanism (e.g., scoring values may change over time as a result). Further, other modifications may be made, by changing different methods for calculating the M matrix, switching from binary vectors to counting vectors, among other changes. These changes are within the spirit and scope of the present invention.

The phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. Any references to embodiments or elements or acts of the systems and methods herein referred to in the singular may also embrace embodiments including a plurality of these elements, and any references in plural to any embodiment or element or act herein may also embrace embodiments including only a single element. References in the singular or plural form are not intended to limit the presently disclosed systems or methods, their components, acts, or elements. The use herein of “including,” “comprising,” “having,” “containing,” “involving,” and variations thereof is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and equivalents thereof as well as additional items. References to “or” may be construed as inclusive so that any terms described using “or” may indicate any of a single, more than one, and all of the described terms. Any references to front and back, left and right, top and bottom, upper and lower, and vertical and horizontal are intended for convenience of description, not to limit the present systems and methods or their components to any one positional or spatial orientation.

Having thus described several aspects of at least one embodiment of this invention, it is to be appreciated that various alterations, modifications, and improvements will readily occur to those skilled in the art. Such alterations, modifications, and improvements are intended to be part of this disclosure, and are intended to be within the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the foregoing description and drawings are by way of example only. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A system comprising: a memory; at least one processor operatively connected to the memory; a database, loaded in the memory, adapted to store sighting data relating to one or more devices connected in a device graph; a scoring engine, executed by the at least one processor, trained at least in part by comparing raw scores for pairs of connected devices in the device graph and raw scores for pairs of unconnected devices in the device graph, and adapted to determine a win rate for one of the pairs of connected devices based on a raw score of the one of the pairs of connected devices and a raw score of a one of the pairs of unconnected devices, and score one or more edges of the device graph connecting the one or more devices, the scoring of the one or more edges comprising: accessing first sighting data; generating a first vector for a first node in the device graph using the first sighting data; accessing an attribute matrix generated using sighting data counts, wherein the attribute matrix is constructed to discount common activity based on identifying correlations between connected devices in excess of a threshold to remove noisy sighting data from consideration from the device graph; generating a second vector for the first node using the first vector and the attribute matrix; generating a raw score for an edge of the device graph using the second vector and a third vector for a second node, wherein the edge defines a connection between the first node and the second node; generating a final score for the edge using the raw score and the scoring mapper trained using the device graph; and wherein the at least one processor when executing is configured to: select and communicate digital content to one or more devices or one or more users based at least in part on the scoring of the one or more edges of the device graph.
 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to a website.
 3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to an application program.
 4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the attribute matrix is further constructed by: propagating sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph.
 5. The system according to claim 4, wherein the attribute matrix is further constructed by: determining a correlation between the connected nodes within the device graph based on the propagated sighting data.
 6. The system according to claim 4, wherein the attribute matrix is further constructed by: determining a Pearson correlation matrix based on the propagated sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph.
 7. The system according to claim 4, wherein the connected nodes within the device graph are different computer platforms.
 8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the attribute matrix is further constructed by: reducing a volume of the sighting data by grouping similar sighting data.
 9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the attribute matrix is further constructed by: identifying fraudulent data within the sighting data.
 10. The system according to claim 1, further comprising an interface that indicates the final score for the edge.
 11. A method comprising: maintaining, in a memory of a computer system, a device graph including a representation of a plurality of devices connected by one or more edges; storing sighting data relating to the one or more devices connected in the device graph; and scoring, by a scoring engine trained at least in part by comparing raw scores for pairs of connected devices in the device graph and raw scores for pairs of unconnected devices in the device graph, one or more edges of the device graph connecting the one or more devices; determining, by the scoring engine, a win rate for one of the pairs of connected devices based on a raw score of the one of the pairs of connected devices and a raw score of a one of the pairs of unconnected devices; wherein the act of scoring at least one of the one or more edges is determined based upon the sighting data, wherein the act of scoring includes: accessing first sighting data; generating a first vector for a first node in the device graph using the first sighting data; accessing an attribute matrix generated using sighting data counts, wherein the attribute matrix is constructed to discount common activity based on identifying correlations between connected devices in excess of a threshold to remove noisy sighting data from consideration from the device graph; generating a second vector for the first node using the first vector and the attribute matrix; generating a raw score for an edge of the device graph using the second vector and a third vector for a second node, wherein the edge defines a connection between the first node and the second node; generating a final score for the edge using the raw score and the scoring mapper trained using the device graph; and selecting and communicating digital content to one or more devices or one or more users based at least in part on the scoring of the one or more edges of the device graph.
 12. The method according to claim 11, wherein the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to a website.
 13. The method according to claim 11, wherein the sighting data includes at least one portion of data identifying a user access to an application program.
 14. The method according to claim 11, further comprising an act of propagating the sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph.
 15. The method according to claim 14, further comprising determining a correlation between the connected nodes within the device graph based on the propagated sighting data.
 16. The method according to claim 14, further comprising determining a Pearson correlation matrix based on the propagated sighting data between connected nodes within the device graph.
 17. The method according to claim 14, wherein the connected nodes within the device graph are different computer platforms.
 18. The method according to claim 14, further comprising an act of reducing a volume of the sighting data responsive to an act of grouping similar sighting data.
 19. The system of claim 1, wherein the attribute matrix is limited to nodes in the device graph having a same platform pairing.
 20. The system of claim 1, wherein the common activity comprises sighting data concerning websites or applications that belong to highly correlated clusters that satisfy a size criterion.
 21. The system of claim 1, wherein the common activity comprises sighting data concerning websites or applications determined to be fraudulent or satisfying a popularity criterion.
 22. The system of claim 1, wherein the first sighting data comprises a subset of the sighting data.
 23. The method of claim 11, wherein the common activity comprises sighting data concerning websites or applications that belong to highly correlated clusters that satisfy a size criterion.
 24. The method of claim 11, wherein the common activity comprises sighting data concerning websites or applications determined to be fraudulent or satisfying a popularity criterion.
 25. The method of claim 11, wherein the first sighting data comprises a subset of the sighting data. 